D S RAMACHANDRA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before me is a member of the bar and he has challenged certain aspects of Section 130 of the motor vehicles Act, 1988 as also the corresponding Provisions of Rule 139 of the central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The petitioner owns a hero honda motor cycle bearing registration no, ka-04-h-236. On 23-7-1994 when the petitioner was riding the vehicle on bannerghatta road the police stopped the vehicle and asked him to produce the driving licence, insurance certificate, registration certificate etc. The petitioner's case is that since he was not carrying these documents with him that the police straight away issued a summons to him alleging that he has committed an offence and directed him to appear before the traffic court on 30-7-1994. His contention is that he was unnecessarily delayed because there was a lot of confusion in so far as many persons had been collected and the police took one hour to complete the formalities but none of the persons were allowed to explain anything and furthermore, that the entire exercise was absolutely mechanical and he submits that even assuming the law was being enforced, that the manner in which it was done leaves much to be desired.

(2.) I shall go into the basic challenge that has. Been put forward by the petitioner's learned Advocate but I do consider at the very outset to record that there is undoubtedly much substance in his grievance that in situations such as this, the citizen is often intimidated, harassed, there are occasions when attempts are made to extort money or generally the citizen is left with a totally unpleasant situation. This is an area which the government and the police department will have to look into seriously because I see no ground on which the officers and staff of the department cannot be specifically ordered to carry out their tasks with a degree of efficiency but more importantly, with an element of courtesy. Having said so much about the duty of the law enforcement machinery, I need to also record that the learned government Advocate has pointed out that this is only one side of the picture in so far as there are very serious faults on the part of the offenders to the extent that he is fully justified when he points out to me that persons do not even so much disclose their names and addresses truthfully in almost 100% of the cases, not only does the offender himself start offering all sorts of incentives to the police even to the extent of thrusting money into their hands in order to get away but what is more common is that the police are intimidated and threatened even to the extent of informing them as to who the contacts and well wishers of the offender are and direct threats that the officer or constable will either be transferred or suspended. It is unfortunate that this is the order of the day and the learned government Advocate is therefore justified in pointing out that when incidents like this takes place, delays are inevitable and if the offender seeks to intimidate the law enforcement machinery that it is equally necessary for the police to take firm steps which are often categorised as discourtesy and ruthlessness. I see considerable justification in what has been pointed out because he has cited numerous instances which take place almost every day wherein it has become common-place to incite the passer by to collect a crowd, create an unruly incident with the sole object of pressurising the police to release the person concerned. If such intimidatory tactics are used, it would hardly be justifiable to blame the police who will have to use equally stronger methods to enforce the law. In situations such as this, the correct procedure for the police officer to follow is to straight away register an offence under sections 186/189 of Indian penal code against the party who is intimidating him or inciting others to violence under the charge of interfering with the performance of duties by a public servant in the discharge of lawful duties. All said and done however, the attempt should always be made by the police to do their duty without any form of harassment, unpleasantness or discourtesy. There shall be a corresponding duty cast on the citizen to respect the law and the enforcement officers. It has also become common practice for offenders to speed off when asked to stop. In all such cases, the vehicle must be apprehended with the use of wireless equipment and the driver taken into custody on the spot.

(3.) THE learned government Advocate brought it to my notice that as a result of interference with the police department that the officers and staff are heavily demoralised. There is a whole class of noveau-riche traders and criminals who have ready access to politicians at different levels, who in turn intimidate law enforcement officers, threaten and bully them, get them suspended and transferred. The breakdown of the law and order machinery is directly traceable to this criminal - politician nexus that has been highlighted by the vora commission report and which the prime minister has promised to end. As a starting point, it would be desirable for the lok ayukta to set up a special cell to examine any instances where public servants have been harassed or intimidated and to recommend to the high court for appropriate action, including prosecution of such persons, regardless of their status. It is a matter of deepest regret that Bangalore is the only state capital in the country where members of the traffic control department are systematically injured and even killed by a strata of society who are impervious of the law, and the time has now come for the courts to instill some serious discipline into this lot. 3-a. The petitioner's learned Advocate advanced a challenge to section 130 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act which prescribes that: